1. You have zero proof of that. We know nothing about what's going on inside the country.2. Saddam killed off an entire country. Saddam established death squads to stop people from defecting to American forces. Saddam was a butcher, not a hero of the unwashed masses. 3. One of the reasons to attack Libya is to promote democracy, well.. promote it.

And Iraq started with a lot of air strikes.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

I'm most interested in why so many Americans are demanding Obama invade Libya to overthrow Gaddafi. When Bush went after Osama and later Saddam we nearly shat ourselves. I guess we think that if a democrat wants war it must be a good thing. I'm thinking when all these countries are settled with freely elected leaders and re-opened to the west, we'll look back on Bush in a completely different light.

That I'm thinking too. Some day in the not too distant future most of us will remember Bush jr. as a good president, perhaps equally with Reagan. I hold Bush jr. in high regard.

QUOTE (Heartless @ Feb 28 2011, 07:52 AM)

1. You have zero proof of that. We know nothing about what's going on inside the country.2. Saddam killed off an entire country. Saddam established death squads to stop people from defecting to American forces. Saddam was a butcher, not a hero of the unwashed masses. 3. One of the reasons to attack Libya is to promote democracy, well.. promote it.

And Iraq started with a lot of air strikes.

I supported the last invasion of Iraq from day one, and I still do. When you know that, it'll maybe come as a surprise that I'm against any military intervention in Libya now. This revolution they'll have to fight on their own. Actually, a part of me is on Ghadaffi's side, a part of me is on the rebel's side.

1. You have zero proof of that. We know nothing about what's going on inside the country.2. Saddam killed off an entire country. Saddam established death squads to stop people from defecting to American forces. Saddam was a butcher, not a hero of the unwashed masses. 3. One of the reasons to attack Libya is to promote democracy, well.. promote it.

And Iraq started with a lot of air strikes.

1. Well, based on all available evidence (images and videos posted by Libyan citizens), and the fact that there was no large scale attack like there was in Iraq... its safe to say that it appears that the uprising started with in. You want more proof than that then thats too bad.

2. Not at the time we attacked him. Those attacts were in the 1990s, we attacked hi min 2003.

3. My point is that attacking Iraq set precedence.

I know, where the fucked up was actually invading the country. And i don't want a lot of airstrikes. Just one well targeted one, Gadafi's palace.

Which palace? And hey. The first people in Iraq were some guys called "Grey Fox." They're a highly classified delta force team. They lived in Baghdad. They were the reason we were able to invade that city, and were there long before any marine even crossed the border from Kuwait. The US is famous for deep insertion, highly patient covert teams.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

The employment of poison gas. Ethnic cleansing and genocide. The killing of civilians. The killing of wounded soldiers. Mass rape. Starvation of prisoners, and starvation of an occupied people. Attacking a peaceful nation without warrant or causation. Conscripting women into sexual slavery, or taking of slaves of any kind. Unrestricted warfare against merchants, the Red Cross, or any non-allied medical personnel.

I don't remember doing any of that. But I do remember the Iraqi's taking prisoners to rape, torture and tote on al-jahzeera as trophies of war.

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

Bombing civilians with phospherus and uranium tipped missiles might as well be classed as chemical attackss. Killing wounded soldiers happened a lot, particularly by U.S soldiers. Some also raped then murdered Iraqi girls, killed journalists who where displaying huge 'TV' ensignia on their vehicles, bombed the country's main water plants for no other reason than to earn future contracts to rebuild them, totured prisoners of war.

Those are war crimes and the commander in chief was Bush, therefore he is a war criminal.

Yes, and we nuked Baghdad. I'd like to see your sources bub. (That doesn't have to do with Abu-Gharib, or Pvt Green)

Jesus! You must have been sunbathing over the border in Saudi when all this was going on. Do you know what a MK 77 bomb is?

I'll give you time to google it.....bub.

I'm not a pilot. I'm not a Marine. And, after a google search, it does say it is similar, but not the same as napalm.

"The U.S. destroyed its remaining Vietnam era napalm in 2001 but, according to the reports for I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) serving in Iraq in 2003, they used a total of 30 MK 77 weapons in Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003, against military targets away from civilian areas. The MK 77 firebomb does not have the same composition as napalm, although it has similar destructive characteristics. The Pentagon has told us that owing to the limited accuracy of the MK 77, it is not generally used in urban terrain or in areas where civilians are congregated."[6]

So we used it on area targets and a few select individual targets. And avoided civilians. So, again, I don't know where you're going with this. What great travesty did we visit upon these nice people with something that isn't napalm?

This post has been edited by Heartless: Mar 1 2011, 04:24 AM

--------------------

QUOTE (Qdeathstar @ Mar 13 2009, 01:45 AM)

The reason is that when heartless says something stupid, he really means it and believes it.

“They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end.”

The media are definitely telling us bullshit about this so-called uprising. Heard a report about Gaddafi bombing a ship in the harbor of (forget the name of the city) but one fact they left out was that place is in the middle of the desert. There's no proof of any massacre's of innocent people, or airstrikes on civilian areas. I think the media are doing a 'toppling Saddams statue' story here, like when they photoshopped the 'cheering crowd' of thousands which was in fact probably around a hundred.Seems likely he had some of his soldiers killed because they were deserting but that would happen in most middle eastern countries.